[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

02437: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

From: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:32:18 +1000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Hello, Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan.

The people can influence politicians of each party (or no party)
by making clear to them that voters who have adopted the Simpol
declaration  www.simpol.org will vote at national elections
(or at party candidate pre-selection) giving preference to
Simpol-adopting nominees. Adopters are casting e-votes in e-mail
discussions developing majorities for particular multilateral
government proposla for equity and sustainability across borders.

Adopting governments pledge to implement such proposals
ONLY when sufficient other nations act similarly
SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus no national or partisan policies are
forfeited by adopting goverments until rival governments
similarly accept loss of international advantage in (e.g.)
investment or jobs.

Doug Everingham. 
==== 




On 17/11/2009, at 2:40 AM, Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan wrote:



Note: Forwarded message attached

-- Original Message --

From: "Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan"vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com
To: autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

From: "Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan"<vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree


Jim,
You are right in your observations addressed to Hamid. However consider the last comment you have made:
"With DD the power is always in the voters hands". This is theoretically correct. However how can such a situation happen in the first place? How can the people enforce DD overcoming the present set of party-based politicians?

The political parties will allow this to happen only if the situation demands it. Presently the political parties happen to be the only organized groups that can contest elections and post their candidates. It is this dependency of the people on political parties that puts the people on the back-foot and tolerate the wrong doings of political parties.

Conceptualising an alternative to political parties would be a move that would put the political parties on the defensive. Strategically it would put the people in a stronger position. All said and done politics is a game and people need to be given a fair chance to realize their goal.

Regards,
Vijayaraghavan


On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:51:55 +0530 wrote

Hi Hamid,

Look for ***

Regards

Jim Powell South Africa

From:Hi Jim
>
>If voters don't trust or are not satisfied with what politicians do, theyshould be able to take their political destiny in their own hands. Nobody is allowed to make decisions in behalf of you in your private life as long asyou have not officially and lawfully accepted be represented by others, withexecption for children and mentally sick people.*** Agreed


>Why should this be allowed in political systems.*** The voters would be in charge and impose any system they see fit


>I feel that you are worry for politicians to loose their power and easy earnedadvantages by changing the political system to DD but I don't understand why. *** I have little respect for most politicians. DD willtake the power away


>Do you work as politician or are there any other reasons for that? *** Only as a community representative


>Everybody should be able to bring up political questions important for him /her for discussion and voting without asking politicians to permit it. *** Works well in Switzerland

Of course for peoplewho prefer it there should be possibile to let others (you cancall them politicians) to represent them in some or all questions but this doesnot mean an obligation foreverybody. *** As long as DD is in place this is not a problem

As you told before politicians areemployees of voters, so if voters like they can fire their employees and takethe political power in their own hands. *** With DD the power is always in the voters hands
>
>Do you agree?
>Hamid
>
>


From: autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za
>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:15:12 +0200
>Subject: RE: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Hi Vijayaraghavan,

Wedo not have to have an alternative to political parties. This would be imposingan alternative on the voters. Politicians have a job to do so that the averageperson can get on with his/her life.

Votersjust need the power to reject, modify or create legislation. Our energies needto be in this direction

Regards

JimPowell South Africa

From: VijayaraghavanPadmanabhan [vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com]
>Sent: 15 Nov 2009 04:57 PM
>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>Subject: Re: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Forpeople to be really able to do this, an independent setup (free from partyinfluence) is needed. We need to conceptualize an alternative to politicalparties.
>
>Vijayaraghavan
>
>
>
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:12:23 +0530 wrote

Hamid,

Thatis exactly the point of DD. If people have the power tomake decisions, makemistakes,

learnfrom their mistakes, and then correct them, they willultimately mature into

grownupcitizens. Otherwise, we live in our parent'shouse forever.

B. T.Marking

www.sdindie21.org


From: HamidMohseni[esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com]
>>Sent: Friday, November 13, 20093:16 AM
>>To: World Direct Democracy
>>Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree orDisagree

Outcomeof bad laws decided by people by refrandom willaffect people badly and makethem to changethe law later on
>>by new refrandoms.
>>
>>Regards
>>


From: parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com
>>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>>Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:31:02 -0800
>>Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Goodpoint. The removal of bad laws has proven trickythroughout history.

Whatis a bad law? Should they be judged by theirintentions or their outcomes?

Or,does a law become “good” if it issupported by a majority of thepeople, or their representatives?

Ifa people are unjust or immoral, should a democracyallow them to design anunjust or immoral social structure?

Forexample, if 90% of the people in Seattle want to outlawoutdooradvertising… billboards, etcetera… is it a good law? Itviolatesproperty rights, but those rights are DEFINED by the public ingeneral.Certainly, other building codes already allow the liberty of an ownerto besuperseded by will of the public. If 90% of the people want to outlawMuslimchurches, should that be allowed? Please, take into account that thisisalready the case. Our representatives can effectively change any part oftheconstitution if they think it will gain them votes, and 90% means apoliticianwould be suicidal not to take up the call. (Honorable, butpolitically, aloser).

So…

Shouldgood law based on a defined set of virtues (if so,then who defines the set), orshould it be based on the public will? Or both?Or neither? Or something else?Be very specific.

Parrhesia

P.S.

Ourcurrent system makes it very possible for ourprejudices to work their way intolaw. As long as the people do not clamor forlimits to government power, therepresentatives tend to give them what theywant. Even when the public is 40% infavor of something, the government willlatch onto it if it increases theirscope and power (Health Care Bill, $700Billion Bailout). When the people arehighly in favor of a measure that limitspower, however, the government is lessresponsive. For example, term limits forcongress have had over 50% publicsupport for over half of the last 100 years,and no congress has ever acted onit.

From: wingsprd[wingsprd(at)goldenwest.net]
>>Sent: Sunday, November 08, 20099:05 AM
>>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>>Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree orDisagree

Andthe repeal of those that have proven ineffective or that have

outgrowntheir usefulness.

B.Thomas Marking


From: JosephHammer[parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com]
>>Sent: Saturday, November 07, 200910:52 PM
>>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>>Subject: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Astable, fair and productive government should promotethe formation of new lawsand changes to existing ones.

(Tokeep them fresh, one might suppose?)

Parrhesia


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]